P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality

ost (Chris Mark) wrote in message ...
From: mjmarron

What would be more effective for strafing -- An F-51 with it's six
50-calibers or an A-1 with its four 20 mm cannon?

-Mike (my money's on the A-1) Marron

Whatever makes the bigger hole. twentymikemike presumably. But the .50 was
adequate, when used correctly and with sufficient volume, to deal with most of
the tanks of WW2/korea era.

The Americans did some tests in 1951 in Korea, using some USAF and
USMC planes to strafe trucks (the story is on the web somewhere).
Basically the six .50s in the USAF planes did little damage, whereas
the 20mm was devastating.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Go to my website and click on"FLAK".I took that shot in a heavy flakfield out
of the nose of Willie The Wolf. I think that one was over Koblenz.

Art, are those photos taken by you personally? Regarding the
"One goes down" photo..I get a tear in my eye just seeing the
photo. I can't imagine what I would feel if I were personally
watching a planeload of my buds going down like that. Is it
horror, anger, sorrow,...? How the hell did you mentally deal
with watching something like that?

My heart goes out to you for having to go through such experiences.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 12 Aug 2003, Chris Mark wrote:

-snips-

Whatever makes the bigger hole. twentymikemike presumably. But the .50 was
adequate, when used correctly and with sufficient volume, to deal with most of
the tanks of WW2/korea era.

I shouldn't think so - top armor on a T34/85 was 20mm which is just about
at the maximum penetration of an AP .50 caliber round at 300 yards.

But of course, maximum penetration is calculated with a 90 degree
impact - something a strafing aircraft is unlikely to achieve -
anything over 45 degrees is unlikely and something below 30 degrees
more typical.

Cheers and all,

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:
wrote:

What would be more effective for strafing -- An F-51 with it's six
50-calibers or an A-1 with its four 20 mm cannon?

If the A-1 had four 20 mm cannon (originally two) this
was in no small part because of the feedback designer
Ed Heinemann had been given on the relative merits of
the 20 mm vs. .50 for strafing during his tour of the Pacific
in WWII. The A-1 incorporated quite a lot of this kind
of user feedback -- probably this was an unique example
of aircrew opinion have more influence on a design than
official specifications.

A wicked video of the A-1's four 20 mm in action he

http://skyraider.org/hook/movies.htm

My father also had a great story about playing a deadly
"cat & mouse" game with a NVN grunt -- literally toying with
then greasing him in his tracks -- using the A-1's slow speed,
great maneuverability and four cannon.

Of course, the F-51 was a poor choice for ground strafing
altogether; much too vulnerable.

Righto.

-Mike Marron

In message ,
writes
What would be more effective for strafing -- An F-51 with it's six
50-calibers or an A-1 with its four 20 mm cannon?

20mm, definitely.

The .50 was a fine anti-fighter weapon for most of the war, blessed with
a good rate of fire, excellent ballistics, and reasonable lethality.
Against bombers it would have struggled, but the US rarely faced large,
armoured bombers. The RAF started with .303, rapidly found it wanting
and moved to the Hispano; the USAF had the .50 which was a good
all-rounder, even if with hindsight a change to 20mm for many roles
would have been better.

The USN switched to 20mm. the USAF didn't. Difference between Pacific
and Europe, perhaps?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

From: "Paul J. Adam"

The .50

Against bombers it would have struggled
but the US rarely faced large,
armoured bombers.

There were enough friendly fire incidents to demonstrate the lethality of US
..50 cal against "large armored bombers."


Chris Mark

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message ,
writes
What would be more effective for strafing -- An F-51 with it's six
50-calibers or an A-1 with its four 20 mm cannon?

20mm, definitely.

The .50 was a fine anti-fighter weapon for most of the war, blessed with
a good rate of fire, excellent ballistics, and reasonable lethality.
Against bombers it would have struggled, but the US rarely faced large,
armoured bombers. The RAF started with .303, rapidly found it wanting
and moved to the Hispano; the USAF had the .50 which was a good
all-rounder, even if with hindsight a change to 20mm for many roles
would have been better.

The USN switched to 20mm. the USAF didn't. Difference between Pacific
and Europe, perhaps?


Just looking at a German 20mm round compared to a US 12.7 shows one
thing: the cartridge and charge size were about the same, the round
about the same length. The US round trading volume for velocity and
ballistics. I believe 760m/s vs 900m/s.

The Germans had a 20mm cannon known as a Mk 151/20 which was also
available as 15mm Mk 151/15 that had otherwise the same barrel length.

This was a weapon comparable in ballistics (slighly better) to the US
0.50 inch. Its round could carry a small explosive. On the whole the
Germans used the 20mm version as despite the 15mm weapons superior
ballistics as the destructive power was so much more. The Mk151/15
was fairly quickly dropped from the Me109F in favour of the Mk 151/20.

However the Germans continue to show interests in the Mk151/15.

The Focke Wulf Ta 183 Jet fighter (the basis for the Mig 15) was to
have a choice of

4 x 151/15 15mm
4 x 151/20 20mm
or 2 x Mk 108 30mm

Presumably fighter to fighter combat would have made the 15mm round
more effective in terms of scoring hits with 4 guns probably supllying
sufficient rounds.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes
What would be more effective for strafing -- An F-51 with it's six
50-calibers or an A-1 with its four 20 mm cannon?

20mm, definitely.

The .50 was a fine anti-fighter weapon for most of the war, blessed with
a good rate of fire, excellent ballistics, and reasonable lethality.
Against bombers it would have struggled, but the US rarely faced large,
armoured bombers. The RAF started with .303, rapidly found it wanting
and moved to the Hispano; the USAF had the .50 which was a good
all-rounder, even if with hindsight a change to 20mm for many roles
would have been better.

Not necessarily. The .50 cal was generally more reliable than most of
the 20mm cannon then available, and carried more ammo per weapon.
Unless you can show that 20mm armed fighters were demonstrably
superior strafers (and given the records attained by the P-47 and P-51
in both the European and Pacific theaters that is going to be hard to
do), it is kind of hard to say "20mm definitely", IMO. Remember, the
question regards strafing, not the downing of large, reasonably
armored bombers.


And the Hawker Typhoon and Hurricane armed with cannon did a lot
of strafing, the comparison could have been and was done.


The USN switched to 20mm. the USAF didn't. Difference between Pacific
and Europe, perhaps?

When did the USN switch to the 20mm during WWII, or for that matter
during the Korean War? AFAIK, the standard remained the .50 cal in
both services until after the Korean conflict, when both began
shifting to the 20mm at roughly the same time (in the same general
timeframe that the A-1 was coming into major service with its 20mm,
the later F-86 variants were also gaining the heavier weapons, IIRC,
as was the new F-100).

Brooks

The USN jets produced in the immediate post war period
were cannon armed. The Grumman F9F for example reached
the fleet in 1949 and had 4 20mm cannon as did the F2H
Banshee

Later variants of the last generation of piston engined fighters
were also fitted with cannon including the F8F Bearcat
in the 1B variant.

The F7F Tigercat had 4 20 mm cannon in the wing roots and
4x0.50 MG in the nose.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes
What would be more effective for strafing -- An F-51 with it's six
50-calibers or an A-1 with its four 20 mm cannon?

20mm, definitely.

The .50 was a fine anti-fighter weapon for most of the war, blessed with
a good rate of fire, excellent ballistics, and reasonable lethality.
Against bombers it would have struggled, but the US rarely faced large,
armoured bombers. The RAF started with .303, rapidly found it wanting
and moved to the Hispano; the USAF had the .50 which was a good
all-rounder, even if with hindsight a change to 20mm for many roles
would have been better.

Not necessarily. The .50 cal was generally more reliable than most of
the 20mm cannon then available, and carried more ammo per weapon.
Unless you can show that 20mm armed fighters were demonstrably
superior strafers (and given the records attained by the P-47 and P-51
in both the European and Pacific theaters that is going to be hard to
do), it is kind of hard to say "20mm definitely", IMO. Remember, the
question regards strafing, not the downing of large, reasonably
armored bombers.


And the Hawker Typhoon and Hurricane armed with cannon did a lot
of strafing, the comparison could have been and was done.

Show me where the P-47 was deficient as a strafer. It has been
acknowledged to have been among the best, if not the best, of the
CAS/interdiction platforms used during WWII in Europe--so why was its
..50 cal armament lacking? The USAAF thought that the higher rate of
fire, generally more reliable guns, and greater ammo loads, along with
a flatter trajectory, made the .50 cal a better choice at that time
than the 20mm (and the USN agreed, as we saw with the armament that
was affiixed to the Hellcats and Corsairs through the end of the war,
and in the case of the Corsair through the Korean experience).



The USN switched to 20mm. the USAF didn't. Difference between Pacific
and Europe, perhaps?

When did the USN switch to the 20mm during WWII, or for that matter
during the Korean War? AFAIK, the standard remained the .50 cal in
both services until after the Korean conflict, when both began
shifting to the 20mm at roughly the same time (in the same general
timeframe that the A-1 was coming into major service with its 20mm,
the later F-86 variants were also gaining the heavier weapons, IIRC,
as was the new F-100).

Brooks

The USN jets produced in the immediate post war period
were cannon armed. The Grumman F9F for example reached
the fleet in 1949 and had 4 20mm cannon as did the F2H
Banshee

The F9F-5 was indeed cannon armed. But, the USAF also had early
experience in cannon armament for fighters, roughly in the same
timeframe as what you describe. The P-38 offered a combined MG and
20mm cannon armament during WWII; the P-39 also sported cannon in both
the 20mm and 37mm guises. Likewise, the F-86 first sported 20mm during
the Korean conflict (though the initial experience was less than
satisfactory--it was not until the H model came along that the 20mm
appeared as the standard armament). The fact is that the USN did not
switch to 20mm during WWII, ahead of the USAAF, as Paul stated with
his "difference between the Pacific and Euro theaters" comment.

Brooks


Later variants of the last generation of piston engined fighters
were also fitted with cannon including the F8F Bearcat
in the 1B variant.

The F7F Tigercat had 4 20 mm cannon in the wing roots and
4x0.50 MG in the nose.

Keith

I was looking for confirmation of the F4U--PT boat encounter mentioned earlier
(confirmed it did happen, the boat was PT-124) when I stumbled across this
comment from the PT boat skipper about a debriefing: "My account of seeing the
stern of a barge blown apart by my port .50 cal. guns openly produced skeptical
grunts, then the conversation turned to installing heavier armament...." So
even during the war, there was dispute about the killing power of the .50; I
doubt that decades after the event the issue can be satisfactorily resolved.


Chris Mark